Top 12 Alternatives to Espresso for Android Testing

Introduction: Espresso’s background, growth, and why teams are exploring options

Espresso is Google’s official UI testing framework for Android. Introduced as part of the Android Testing Support Library (and now under AndroidX Test), it was created to make instrumentation testing on real devices and emulators fast, reliable, and developer-friendly. Espresso’s fluent APIs in Java and Kotlin, its synchronization model (Idling Resources), and components such as Espresso Intents helped it become the default choice for many Android teams.

Why did it spread so widely? Espresso runs in the same process as the app, which means tests are fast and tightly synchronized with UI events. It integrates well with Gradle, JUnit, and modern CI/CD pipelines, and it has first-party support from Google. For teams building native Android apps, this combination of speed, stability (when tests are well-structured), and ecosystem integration was hard to beat.

However, the way teams build mobile apps has evolved. Cross-platform frameworks such as Flutter and React Native are common, organizations want cross-app and system-level flows, and visual consistency across devices matters more than ever. Although Espresso covers a large portion of Android functional UI testing, many teams are now looking at complementary or alternative tools to solve use cases beyond Espresso’s core strengths—especially when they need cross-platform support, visual testing, codeless authoring, or broader device-level control.

This guide explores the top 12 alternatives to Espresso for Android testing, what makes each option different, and how they compare so you can choose the right fit for your stack and team.

Overview: 12 top alternatives to Espresso

Here are the top 12 alternatives for Android UI testing beyond Espresso:

• Appium

• UI Automator

• Detox

• Maestro

• Appium Flutter Driver

• Airtest + Poco

• Airtest Project

• Applitools for Mobile

• Paparazzi (Cash App)

• Shot (Kakao)

• Repeato

• Waldo

Why look for Espresso alternatives?

Even though Espresso is powerful, teams commonly look for alternatives or complements because of:

• Cross-platform needs: Espresso focuses on Android. Teams shipping iOS and Android together want shared tooling for both.

• Framework specialization: Apps built with Flutter or React Native benefit from tooling that understands those frameworks at a widget or bridge level.

• System-level and cross-app flows: Espresso is app-centric. Testing notifications, settings, or flows that jump between apps can be easier with other tools.

• Visual validation and screenshots: Espresso is primarily functional. Visual regression testing and cross-device look-and-feel needs often require dedicated tools.

• Test authoring speed and skills: Espresso requires Java/Kotlin code and Android familiarity. Some teams prefer codeless or declarative flows to accelerate authoring and maintainability.

• Flakiness and maintenance: Poor synchronization and complex UI behaviors can cause flakiness. Some teams seek gray-box or state-synchronized tools that reduce timing issues.

• Device cloud workflows: While Espresso can run in CI and on device farms, other tools are built from the ground up for cloud-based runs and orchestration.

Alternatives in detail

Below you’ll find each alternative with a concise description, key strengths, how it compares to Espresso, and the scenarios it best serves.

1) Appium

What it is:Appium is a widely adopted, open source (Apache-2.0) mobile UI automation framework that supports Android, iOS, and mobile web. It implements the WebDriver protocol and offers a large ecosystem of client libraries (Java, JavaScript, Python, Ruby, and more). Appium is community-driven with broad vendor support across cloud device farms.

Key strengths:

• Cross-platform coverage (Android, iOS, mobile web) with one automation model

• Large ecosystem, multiple languages, and mature community support

• Works well with cloud device farms and parallel execution

• Plugin architecture and driver diversity (UiAutomator2, Espresso driver, XCUITest, and more)

• Extensive tooling and integrations for CI/CD and reporting

How it compares to Espresso:

• Broader scope: Appium covers Android and iOS, while Espresso is Android-only.

• Language flexibility: Write tests in multiple languages vs. Espresso’s Java/Kotlin.

• Execution model: Appium runs out-of-process via WebDriver; Espresso runs in-process (often faster for pure Android).

• Test stability: Espresso’s synchronization model is excellent for native Android; Appium may require more explicit waits or good practices to reduce flakiness.

• Ecosystem reach: Appium’s ecosystem and community exceed Espresso’s for cross-platform testing.

Best for:

• Teams that want a single test framework across Android and iOS

• Organizations with diverse language preferences

• QA groups standardizing around WebDriver and device cloud providers

Quick facts:

• Platforms: Android, iOS, Mobile Web

• License: Open Source (Apache-2.0)

• Primary tech: WebDriver

2) UI Automator

What it is:UI Automator is Google’s Android system-level UI testing framework. Unlike Espresso, it can interact across applications and system UI elements (notifications, settings), making it useful for device-level and cross-app scenarios.

Key strengths:

• System-level access to interact beyond a single app

• Complements Espresso for cross-app and OS interactions

• First-party Android support and integration

• Useful for testing flows involving notifications, settings, and other apps

How it compares to Espresso:

• Scope: UI Automator handles system and cross-app flows better than Espresso.

• Speed: Espresso is typically faster for in-app instrumentation; UI Automator can be slower for certain operations.

• Use-case pairing: Many teams pair Espresso (in-app) with UI Automator (system/app-hopping).

Best for:

• Android teams that need to test system UI, permissions, notifications, or multi-app flows

Quick facts:

• Platforms: Android (system-level)

• License: Open Source

• Primary tech: Java/Kotlin

3) Detox

What it is:Detox is an open source (MIT) mobile UI testing framework optimized for React Native apps on Android and iOS. It uses a gray-box approach that synchronizes with the app’s state, helping reduce flakiness common in purely black-box tools.

Key strengths:

• Built-in synchronization with app state reduces timing-related flakiness

• Strong React Native alignment; runs on real devices and emulators

• JavaScript-based tests and modern tooling ecosystem

• Works on both Android and iOS for shared test logic

How it compares to Espresso:

• Platform coverage: Detox is cross-platform but shines with React Native; Espresso is native Android-centric.

• Synchronization: Espresso’s Idling Resources vs. Detox’s gray-box sync—both aim to reduce flakiness; Detox is often smoother for RN apps.

• Language and workflow: Detox uses JavaScript and Node tooling vs. Espresso’s Java/Kotlin and Android tooling.

Best for:

• Teams building React Native apps that want synchronized, cross-platform UI tests

Quick facts:

• Platforms: Android (React Native focus), iOS

• License: Open Source (MIT)

• Primary tech: JavaScript

4) Maestro

What it is:Maestro is an open source, declarative mobile UI testing framework for Android and iOS. Tests are written as YAML flows, making authoring and reviews approachable for developers and QA alike. It emphasizes simple setup, local runs, and cloud runners.

Key strengths:

• Declarative YAML-based flows that are easy to read and maintain

• Cross-platform coverage with a consistent test style

• Quick setup, fast authoring, and helpful CLI

• Good fit for CI/CD and team collaboration

How it compares to Espresso:

• Learning curve: Maestro is simpler for high-level flows; Espresso requires Java/Kotlin and deeper Android knowledge.

• Scope: Maestro covers both Android and iOS; Espresso is Android-only.

• Control and depth: Espresso has deeper access to app internals; Maestro focuses on E2E flows (great for smoke and regression).

Best for:

• Teams seeking easy-to-author cross-platform flows and quick onboarding for non-specialists

Quick facts:

• Platforms: Android, iOS

• License: Open Source

• Primary tech: YAML flows

5) Appium Flutter Driver

What it is:Appium Flutter Driver is an open source driver that enables Appium to interact directly with Flutter’s widget tree. It provides Flutter-aware element discovery and actions, improving reliability over pure black-box approaches for Flutter apps.

Key strengths:

• Flutter-aware element access via the Flutter engine

• Runs on Android and iOS through Appium’s cross-platform stack

• Unlocks Appium’s broad ecosystem (language clients, cloud farms, plugins)

• Often more resilient for Flutter apps than generic accessibility-only drivers

How it compares to Espresso:

• Framework focus: Espresso is great for native Android; Appium Flutter Driver is tailored to Flutter apps.

• Cross-platform: One test approach for Android and iOS Flutter builds vs. Espresso’s Android-only.

• Performance: Espresso is fast for native Android; Appium-based flows may be slower but can be more portable.

Best for:

• Teams shipping Flutter apps and standardizing on Appium for cross-platform coverage

Quick facts:

• Platforms: iOS/Android (Flutter)

• License: Open Source

• Primary tech: Dart/JSONWP via Appium

6) Airtest + Poco

What it is:Created by NetEase, Airtest + Poco is an open source Python-based automation suite for Android, iOS, and Windows. Airtest provides computer-vision-based automation and device control; Poco adds UI hierarchy-aware selectors for popular game engines and apps.

Key strengths:

• Computer vision for robust image-based interactions, useful for games and custom UIs

• Poco’s hierarchy integration enables element targeting beyond pure image matching

• Cross-platform reach (Android, iOS, Windows) in a single toolkit

• Python scripting with recording assistance and CI/CD compatibility

How it compares to Espresso:

• Approach: Airtest is CV-first with optional hierarchy; Espresso is in-app instrumentation.

• Platform reach: Airtest + Poco covers more platforms; Espresso is Android-only.

• Use cases: Airtest shines where UIs are canvas-heavy or non-standard (e.g., games); Espresso excels with standard native Android views.

Best for:

• Teams automating games or custom-rendered UIs and those who prefer Python

Quick facts:

• Platforms: Android, iOS, Windows

• License: Open Source

• Primary tech: Python

7) Airtest Project

What it is:Also from the NetEase ecosystem, Airtest Project is aimed specifically at game UI automation for Android and Windows. It leans heavily on computer vision to interact with visually rich, non-standard UI elements common in games.

Key strengths:

• Strong CV-based automation tuned for game UIs and custom rendering

• Supports Android and Windows, useful for cross-platform game workflows

• Python-based scripting for flexible test logic

• CI/CD-friendly with tooling built for repeatable runs

How it compares to Espresso:

• Specialization: Airtest Project’s CV-first approach is ideal for games; Espresso targets native Android app UIs.

• Flexibility: Works with non-standard UI that Espresso cannot target directly.

• Speed and stability: Espresso is faster and more stable for standard native views; CV-based tools require careful asset management.

Best for:

• Game studios and teams testing custom-rendered or canvas-heavy UIs

Quick facts:

• Platforms: Android/Windows

• License: Open Source

• Primary tech: Python/CV

8) Applitools for Mobile

What it is:Applitools for Mobile is a commercial visual testing solution built around Visual AI. It captures and compares screens to detect visual regressions and layout issues in Android and iOS apps, integrating with popular test frameworks and CI pipelines.

Key strengths:

• AI-powered visual comparisons for robust, cross-device visual regression testing

• Baseline management and collaboration workflows for UI reviews

• Integrates with existing test frameworks and pipelines

• Excellent for catching pixel and layout drift that functional tests miss

How it compares to Espresso:

• Complementary focus: Applitools is not a functional driver; it augments functional tests with visual validation.

• Cross-platform: Works for Android and iOS; Espresso is Android-only.

• Coverage: Espresso verifies behavior; Applitools verifies look-and-feel.

Best for:

• Teams prioritizing visual consistency across releases and devices

Quick facts:

• Platforms: iOS/Android

• License: Commercial

• Primary tech: SDKs (Visual AI)

9) Paparazzi (Cash App)

What it is:Paparazzi is an open source (Apache-2.0) screenshot testing framework for Android created by the Cash App team. It renders views and composables on the JVM without an emulator, enabling fast, deterministic screenshot tests.

Key strengths:

• Emulator-free screenshot tests on the JVM for speed and determinism

• Works well with traditional Views and Jetpack Compose

• Integrates neatly with Gradle and CI

• Great for catching UI regressions at the component/screen level

How it compares to Espresso:

• Focus: Paparazzi is for visual/screenshot testing; Espresso is a functional UI automation framework.

• Speed and stability: Paparazzi is fast and deterministic for screenshots; Espresso is for interaction and end-to-end flows.

• Complementary use: Many teams combine Paparazzi for visuals and Espresso for functional coverage.

Best for:

• Android teams wanting fast, reliable screenshot tests without running an emulator

Quick facts:

• Platforms: Android

• License: Open Source (Apache-2.0)

• Primary tech: Kotlin

10) Shot (Kakao)

What it is:Shot is an open source (Apache-2.0) Android screenshot testing library from Kakao. It captures screenshots during UI tests and helps detect visual diffs between builds.

Key strengths:

• Straightforward screenshot testing that integrates with UI test runs

• Good fit for regression detection at the screen level

• Works with Compose and traditional Views

• Runs in CI with straightforward Gradle tasks

How it compares to Espresso:

• Relationship: Shot often runs in conjunction with Espresso tests to capture screenshots.

• Focus: Visual differences and regressions, not interaction logic.

• Workflow: While Espresso handles user flows, Shot ensures the UI looks correct.

Best for:

• Teams that want to add screenshot assertions to their existing Espresso or UI test suites

Quick facts:

• Platforms: Android

• License: Open Source (Apache-2.0)

• Primary tech: Kotlin

11) Repeato

What it is:Repeato is a commercial, codeless mobile testing tool for Android and iOS that uses computer vision to create and run UI tests. It emphasizes resilience to UI changes and quick authoring through recording and point-and-click workflows.

Key strengths:

• Codeless test authoring with computer vision to reduce locator brittleness

• Cross-platform (Android and iOS) with an approachable UI

• CI/CD integrations for automated runs

• Useful for teams with limited coding resources

How it compares to Espresso:

• Authoring model: Repeato is codeless and CV-based; Espresso is code-driven and in-process.

• Cross-platform: Repeato supports Android and iOS; Espresso is Android-only.

• Depth vs. speed: Espresso provides precise, fast instrumentation; Repeato optimizes for ease of creation and maintenance.

Best for:

• Teams seeking rapid test creation and cross-platform coverage without writing code

Quick facts:

• Platforms: Android, iOS

• License: Commercial

• Primary tech: Computer vision-driven testing

12) Waldo

What it is:Waldo is a commercial, no-code mobile UI testing platform for Android and iOS. It provides a recorder, cloud-based execution, and analytics to help teams ship faster without maintaining complex test infrastructure.

Key strengths:

• No-code test creation with a recorder and intuitive interface

• Cloud execution and result dashboards out of the box

• Helpful for non-specialist contributors and rapid scaling

• Integrates with CI/CD and collaboration workflows

How it compares to Espresso:

• Maintenance and infrastructure: Waldo handles hosting and orchestration; Espresso runs locally or in your CI/device farm.

• Coding needs: Waldo is no-code; Espresso requires Java/Kotlin test code.

• Platform scope: Waldo supports Android and iOS uniformly; Espresso is Android-specific.

Best for:

• Teams that value codeless creation, cloud execution, and minimal tooling overhead

Quick facts:

• Platforms: Android, iOS

• License: Commercial

• Primary tech: No-code testing platform

Things to consider before choosing an Espresso alternative

Before adopting an alternative (or adding a complementary tool), assess these factors to choose confidently:

• Project scope and app architecture

• Platform coverage

• Language and skills

• Ease of setup and authoring speed

• Execution speed and stability

• CI/CD integration and device cloud support

• Debuggability and reporting

• Community support and ecosystem

• Scalability and maintenance

• Cost and licensing

Conclusion: Espresso remains essential, but the right alternative can unlock better outcomes

Espresso is still a foundational choice for Android UI testing: fast, precise, and first-party supported. When your app is native Android and you want reliable, instrumented tests that fit seamlessly into Gradle and CI, Espresso is hard to beat.

That said, modern mobile teams often need more:

• Cross-platform coverage: Appium, Detox, and Maestro help you write once and test across Android and iOS.

• Framework specialization: Appium Flutter Driver and Detox understand Flutter or React Native internals for more reliable element access.

• System-level and cross-app control: UI Automator fills the gaps around permissions, notifications, and settings that Espresso isn’t designed to cover.

• Visual verification and screenshots: Applitools for Mobile, Paparazzi, and Shot catch layout and pixel regressions that functional tests miss.

• Codeless and faster authoring: Waldo and Repeato reduce coding overhead, enabling broader participation from QA and product teams.

• Game and custom UI testing: Airtest + Poco and Airtest Project’s computer vision are well-suited for canvas-heavy and non-standard UIs.

In practice, many teams combine tools. For example:

• Espresso for core Android functional tests, plus UI Automator for system flows, and Shot or Paparazzi for visual diffs.

• Appium with Appium Flutter Driver for cross-platform Flutter apps, enhanced with Applitools for visual checks.

• Detox for React Native apps, paired with a screenshot tool for UI regression coverage.

• Maestro for fast, readable end-to-end flows across Android and iOS, then Espresso for deep, instrumentation-level tests on Android.

If you run large suites at scale, consider tooling that integrates smoothly with your CI/CD and device farms, supports parallelization, and offers strong reporting. The best choice is the one that fits your tech stack, team skills, and product goals—often a pragmatic combination rather than a single framework.

By mapping your requirements to the strengths of the tools above, you can evolve beyond a one-size-fits-all approach and build a modern, maintainable testing strategy for Android and beyond.